Ayub 11:5

11:5 But if only God would speak, ¹ 

if only he would open his lips against you, ² 

Ayub 13:5

13:5 If only you would keep completely silent! ³ 

For you, that would be wisdom. ⁴ 

Ayub 18:2

18:2 “How long until you ⁵  make an end of words? ⁶ 

You must consider, ⁷  and then ⁸  we can talk.

Ayub 31:1

Job Vindicates Himself

31:1 “I made a covenant with ⁹  my eyes;

how then could I entertain thoughts against a virgin? ¹⁰ 

Ayub 34:23

34:23 For he does not still consider a person, ¹¹ 

that he should come before God in judgment.

Ayub 38:26

38:26 to cause it to rain on an uninhabited land, ¹² 

a desert where there are no human beings, ¹³ 

[11:5]  ¹ tn The wish formula מִי־יִתֵּן (mi yitten, “who will give”; see GKC 477 §151.b) is followed here by an infinitive (Exod 16:3; 2 Sam 19:1).

[11:5]  ² sn Job had expressed his eagerness to challenge God; Zophar here wishes that God would take up that challenge.

[13:5]  ³ tn The construction is the imperfect verb in the wish formula preceded by the infinitive that intensifies it. The Hiphil is not directly causative here, but internally – “keep silent.”

[13:5]  ⁴ tn The text literally reads, “and it would be for you for wisdom,” or “that it would become your wisdom.” Job is rather sarcastic here, indicating if they shut up they would prove themselves to be wise (see Prov 17:28).

[18:2]  ⁵ tn The verb is plural, and so most commentators make it singular. But it seems from the context that Bildad is addressing all of them, and not just Job.

[18:2]  ⁶ tn The construction is קִנְצֵי לְמִלִּין (qintse lÿmillin), which is often taken to be “end of words,” as if the word was from קֵץ (qets, “end”). But a plural of “end” is not found in the OT. Some will link the word to Arabic qanasa, “to hunt; to give chase,” to get an interpretation of “snares for words.” But E. Dhorme (Job, 257) objects that this does not fit the speech of Bildad (as well as it might Job’s). He finds a cognate qinsu, “fetters, shackles,” and reads “how long will you put shackles on words.” But G. R. Driver had pointed out that this cognate does not exist (“Problems in the Hebrew text of Job,” VTSup 3 [1955]: 72-93). So it would be preferable to take the reading “ends” and explain the ן (nun) as from a Aramaizing by-form. This is supported by 11QtgJob that uses סוֹף (sof, “end”). On the construction, GKC 421 §130.a explains this as a use of the construct in rapid narrative to connect the words; in such cases a preposition is on the following noun.

[18:2]  ⁷ tn The imperfect verb, again plural, would be here taken in the nuance of instruction, or a modal nuance of obligation. So Bildad is telling his listeners to be intelligent. This would be rather cutting in the discourse.

[18:2]  ⁸ tn Heb “afterward.”

[31:1]  ⁹ tn The idea of cutting a covenant for something may suggest a covenant that is imposed, except that this construction elsewhere argues against it (see 2 Chr 29:10).

[31:1]  ¹⁰ tn This half-verse is the effect of the covenant. The interrogative מָה (mah) may have the force of the negative, and so be translated “not to pay attention.”

[34:23]  ¹¹ tn Heb “for he does not put upon man yet.” This has been given a wide variety of interpretations, all of which involve a lot of additional thoughts. The word עוֹד (’od, “yet, still”) has been replaced with מוֹעֵד (mo’ed, “an appointed time,” Reiske and Wright), with the ם (mem) having dropped out by haplography. This makes good sense. If the MT is retained, the best interpretation would be that God does not any more consider (from “place upon the heart”) man, that he might appear in judgment.

[38:26]  ¹² tn Heb “on a land, no man.”

[38:26]  ¹³ tn Heb “a desert, no man in it.”